I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

At age 50, you could probably make it out on 30x expenses. At age 67 or age 70 you would have access to social security which lowers the need to take from portfolio. These absolute numbers don’t seem to account for any growth in the portfolio. If ones expenses are $100k, you don’t need $4 million to retire, even $3 million seems high. People are retiring with a lot less than that and aren’t being forced back to work.

As you well know, the future may not mirror the past. Just look at all the 3% is the new 4% threads on this forum. Combination of high(er) valuations today and low interest rates should at least give some pause before just assuming because it worked in the past it will work in the future.

Time horizon matters too, which was what I was responding to.

The chart above that someone else was kind enough to post would say otherwise. 3% is bombproof.

No problem. The chart shows the results of retiring over the back-tested range and clearly shows what works and what doesn't.

want vs need argument isn't needed. Otherwise everyone on this site should go rent the cheapest apartment in town in the worst area in town for $500 / month and live off MREs. Montly expenses at <$750/month and everyone can FIRE at a network of $225K.

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

At age 50, you could probably make it out on 30x expenses. At age 67 or age 70 you would have access to social security which lowers the need to take from portfolio. These absolute numbers don’t seem to account for any growth in the portfolio. If ones expenses are $100k, you don’t need $4 million to retire, even $3 million seems high. People are retiring with a lot less than that and aren’t being forced back to work.

As you well know, the future may not mirror the past. Just look at all the 3% is the new 4% threads on this forum. Combination of high(er) valuations today and low interest rates should at least give some pause before just assuming because it worked in the past it will work in the future.

Time horizon matters too, which was what I was responding to.

3% has historically been 100% safe regardless of age and it’s not even a close call. Valuations aren’t any higher today than at many periods included in the trinity study, and 4% still worked then. 4% was intended to be a very conservative worst-case number for a 30 year retirement, not an average. There is nothing about the current economic environment that doesn’t have an equivalent baked into the existing studies. Advocating below 3% is purely based on fear, not fact.

At age 50, you could probably make it out on 30x expenses. At age 67 or age 70 you would have access to social security which lowers the need to take from portfolio. These absolute numbers don’t seem to account for any growth in the portfolio. If ones expenses are $100k, you don’t need $4 million to retire, even $3 million seems high. People are retiring with a lot less than that and aren’t being forced back to work.

As you well know, the future may not mirror the past. Just look at all the 3% is the new 4% threads on this forum. Combination of high(er) valuations today and low interest rates should at least give some pause before just assuming because it worked in the past it will work in the future.

Time horizon matters too, which was what I was responding to.

3% has historically been 100% safe regardless of age and it’s not even a close call. Valuations aren’t any higher today than at many periods included in the trinity study, and 4% still worked then. 4% was intended to be a very conservative worst-case number for a 30 year retirement, not an average. There is nothing about the current economic environment that doesn’t have an equivalent baked into the existing studies. Advocating below 3% is purely based on fear, not fact.

Just because it has been 100% safe in the past does not guarantee it will work in the future. Also, it has not worked for 30 year periods in many markets outside the US.

Having said that, I am largely with you folks as I wrote above (3% for someone who is 55-60 is pretty darn safe) and in this post claiming that 3% is the new 4% (for 30 year retirement periods).

Heck, I retired at 53 and am using a WD rate of 3.0%. So believe me I get it.

My point in this thread was simply that I thought what Dottie57 had proposed had some appeal - some sort of sliding scale SWR that took life expectancy into consideration, especially for those who want to FIRE at a really young age. After all, it is not dissimilar to what the RMD formula does.

At age 50, you could probably make it out on 30x expenses. At age 67 or age 70 you would have access to social security which lowers the need to take from portfolio. These absolute numbers don’t seem to account for any growth in the portfolio. If ones expenses are $100k, you don’t need $4 million to retire, even $3 million seems high. People are retiring with a lot less than that and aren’t being forced back to work.

As you well know, the future may not mirror the past. Just look at all the 3% is the new 4% threads on this forum. Combination of high(er) valuations today and low interest rates should at least give some pause before just assuming because it worked in the past it will work in the future.

Time horizon matters too, which was what I was responding to.

3% has historically been 100% safe regardless of age and it’s not even a close call. Valuations aren’t any higher today than at many periods included in the trinity study, and 4% still worked then. 4% was intended to be a very conservative worst-case number for a 30 year retirement, not an average. There is nothing about the current economic environment that doesn’t have an equivalent baked into the existing studies. Advocating below 3% is purely based on fear, not fact.

Just because it has been 100% safe in the past does not guarantee it will work in the future. Also, it has not worked for 30 year periods in many markets outside the US.

Having said that, I am largely with you folks as I wrote above (3% for someone who is 55-60 is pretty darn safe) and in this post claiming that 3% is the new 4% (for 30 year retirement periods).

Heck, I retired at 53 and am using a WD rate of 3.0%. So believe me I get it.

My point in this thread was simply that I thought what Dottie57 had proposed had some appeal - some sort of sliding scale SWR that took life expectancy into consideration, especially for those who want to FIRE at a really young age. After all, it is not dissimilar to what the RMD formula does.

Of course there are no guarantees. By the same token, 1% isn’t guaranteed either. But the data says 3% is extraordinarily safe. While nothing is 100% certain, advocating going below 3% is purely based on fear, not fact.

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

One should not confuse income with expenses. If you are living in Manhattan NY, not Manhattan Kansas (no disrespect intended), you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, living on $80K is not sustainable in most parts of Manhattan. The parts that are, you do not want/need to live in.

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

One should not confuse income with expenses. If you are living in Manhattan NY, not Manhattan Kansas (no disrespect intended), you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, living on $80K is not sustainable in most parts of Manhattan. The parts that are, you do not want/need to live in.

So if half of the population of Manhattan, NY, is not living "sustainably," then shouldn't we be shorting Manhattan-based real estate, businesses, etc.?

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

At age 50, you could probably make it out on 30x expenses. At age 67 or age 70 you would have access to social security which lowers the need to take from portfolio. These absolute numbers don’t seem to account for any growth in the portfolio. If ones expenses are $100k, you don’t need $4 million to retire, even $3 million seems high. People are retiring with a lot less than that and aren’t being forced back to work.

As you well know, the future may not mirror the past. Just look at all the 3% is the new 4% threads on this forum. Combination of high(er) valuations today and low interest rates should at least give some pause before just assuming because it worked in the past it will work in the future.

Time horizon matters too, which was what I was responding to.

3% has historically been 100% safe regardless of age and it’s not even a close call. Valuations aren’t any higher today than at many periods included in the trinity study, and 4% still worked then. 4% was intended to be a very conservative worst-case number for a 30 year retirement, not an average. There is nothing about the current economic environment that doesn’t have an equivalent baked into the existing studies. Advocating below 3% is purely based on fear, not fact.

In addition the 4% or 3% rule completely leaves out social security. I know for my family that would be worth thousands per month. Sure it might be altered 30 years from now, but for any couple who paid in for 30 years it could make a large difference.

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

One should not confuse income with expenses. If you are living in Manhattan NY, not Manhattan Kansas (no disrespect intended), you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, living on $80K is not sustainable in most parts of Manhattan. The parts that are, you do not want/need to live in.

So if half of the population of Manhattan, NY, is not living "sustainably," then shouldn't we be shorting Manhattan-based real estate, businesses, etc.?

Do you have an efficient method of doing so? If you don't, renting an apartment is preferable to buying. If you think the stock market is overpriced, go take a look at NYC real estate.

Is 25x expenses/spending really a “safe” way to look at one’s ability or preparedness to retire? I realize it get safer to use such “rules of thumb” as you get older, but even for a 50 year old, is it still “within the margin of safety” to use the 25x figure? Two SSs will be there, but not using it in any calculations. Inheritances not calculated, either.

IMO, no it's not safe. IMO the only way to really be safe is with a "funded ratio" (projected pv future income relative to present value of future liabilities). This means detailed projections year-by-year for health costs, social security, pension, inheritance, "essential" costs etc. Any ratio less than 1.2 is IMO not safe.

Is 25x expenses/spending really a “safe” way to look at one’s ability or preparedness to retire? I realize it get safer to use such “rules of thumb” as you get older, but even for a 50 year old, is it still “within the margin of safety” to use the 25x figure? Two SSs will be there, but not using it in any calculations. Inheritances not calculated, either.

IMO, no it's not safe. IMO the only way to really be safe is with a "funded ratio" (projected pv future income relative to present value of future liabilities). This means detailed projections year-by-year for health costs, social security, pension, inheritance, "essential" costs etc. Any ratio less than 1.2 is IMO not safe.

If you know how to accurately project future healthcare costs, what will happen with SS, when and how much inheritance we'll receive, future inflation, etc., please let me know.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

In addition the 4% or 3% rule completely leaves out social security. I know for my family that would be worth thousands per month. Sure it might be altered 30 years from now, but for any couple who paid in for 30 years it could make a large difference.

Actually the 3 or 4% SWR is supposed to cover the gap between expenses and regular sources of retirement income like pensions and SS. The calculations get a little more complicated if you are retiring before a source of retirement income kicks in, but it can be done.

The method I like is to carve off a portion of your retirement nest egg to create a sinking fund to cover the difference in expenses until the other income source(s) kicks in. It can be an actual sinking fund like a CD ladder, or a "virtual" one that is only used to make sure that your composite withdrawal rate over the pre- and post-SS periods doesn't exceed a safe rate with wich you are comfortable.

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

But this is still all relative and personal. My "wants" budget for retirement includes $30K/year in travel alone. So my overall "wants" budget (around $160K including taxes) has tons of flexibility, as my "needs" budget is $100K including taxes. Some may say that many of my "needs" are really just "wants" because no one "needs" $100K/year. True, but I still include in my needs budget those things that would make me unhappy to forgo. YMMV.

Edit: And note that I have no mortgage or other debt (but do own a house with substantial property taxes of around $16K/year, plus expensive earthquake insurance).

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

But this is still all relative and personal. My "wants" budget for retirement includes $30K/year in travel alone. So my overall "wants" budget (around $160K including taxes) has tons of flexibility, as my "needs" budget is $100K including taxes. Some may say that many of my "needs" are really just "wants" because no one "needs" $100K/year. True, but I still include in my needs budget those things that would make me unhappy to forgo. YMMV.

Edit: And note that I have no mortgage or other debt (but do own a house with substantial property taxes of around $16K/year, plus expensive earthquake insurance).

Right, but you would have a ton of room to cut back if you needed to survive. If you had 25x your 160k and you absolutely needed to cut back to 80k I'm sure you could.. you would then have 50x expenses. It gets harder at lower expense levels.

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

But this is still all relative and personal. My "wants" budget for retirement includes $30K/year in travel alone. So my overall "wants" budget (around $160K including taxes) has tons of flexibility, as my "needs" budget is $100K including taxes. Some may say that many of my "needs" are really just "wants" because no one "needs" $100K/year. True, but I still include in my needs budget those things that would make me unhappy to forgo. YMMV.

Edit: And note that I have no mortgage or other debt (but do own a house with substantial property taxes of around $16K/year, plus expensive earthquake insurance).

Right, but you would have a ton of room to cut back if you needed to survive. If you had 25x your 160k and you absolutely needed to cut back to 80k I'm sure you could.. you would then have 50x expenses. It gets harder at lower expense levels. You've likely unconsciously factored in a protective cushion.

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

But this is still all relative and personal. My "wants" budget for retirement includes $30K/year in travel alone. So my overall "wants" budget (around $160K including taxes) has tons of flexibility, as my "needs" budget is $100K including taxes. Some may say that many of my "needs" are really just "wants" because no one "needs" $100K/year. True, but I still include in my needs budget those things that would make me unhappy to forgo. YMMV.

Edit: And note that I have no mortgage or other debt (but do own a house with substantial property taxes of around $16K/year, plus expensive earthquake insurance).

Right, but you would have a ton of room to cut back if you needed to survive. If you had 25x your 160k and you absolutely needed to cut back to 80k I'm sure you could.. you would then have 50x expenses. It gets harder at lower expense levels. You've likely unconsciously factored in a protective cushion.

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

But this is still all relative and personal. My "wants" budget for retirement includes $30K/year in travel alone. So my overall "wants" budget (around $160K including taxes) has tons of flexibility, as my "needs" budget is $100K including taxes. Some may say that many of my "needs" are really just "wants" because no one "needs" $100K/year. True, but I still include in my needs budget those things that would make me unhappy to forgo. YMMV.

Edit: And note that I have no mortgage or other debt (but do own a house with substantial property taxes of around $16K/year, plus expensive earthquake insurance).

Right, but you would have a ton of room to cut back if you needed to survive. If you had 25x your 160k and you absolutely needed to cut back to 80k I'm sure you could.. you would then have 50x expenses. It gets harder at lower expense levels.

Agreed. My point was just that standard of living is very subjective and the "wants" budgets of many are lower than the "needs" budgets of many others. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would be unhappy with a $160k budget. It's very anchored to how and where you have been living.

In addition the 4% or 3% rule completely leaves out social security. I know for my family that would be worth thousands per month. Sure it might be altered 30 years from now, but for any couple who paid in for 30 years it could make a large difference.

Actually the 3 or 4% SWR is supposed to cover the gap between expenses and regular sources of retirement income like pensions and SS. The calculations get a little more complicated if you are retiring before a source of retirement income kicks in, but it can be done.

The method I like is to carve off a portion of your retirement nest egg to create a sinking fund to cover the difference in expenses until the other income source(s) kicks in. It can be an actual sinking fund like a CD ladder, or a "virtual" one that is only used to make sure that your composite withdrawal rate over the pre- and post-SS periods doesn't exceed a safe rate with wich you are comfortable.

I might need more education on this. If you only need 40k yearly to survive 25 years, a 1 million portfolio would very likely provide that even without social security.

Now let's say that family takes home 20k per year in social security. You would now likely need much less than 4% or you'd end up with an excess of money.

The 32k includes over 12k in property taxes and homeowners insurance. It is absolutely a want budget not a needs budget. It would keep the standard of living we have now and just exclude debts that would be gone at retirement. I could cut cable, internet, cut back on running heat/air etc. The point that was being made earlier was that the higher the amount of money the more that could but cut out if necessary to FIRE or if things go bad provided you don't have debt.

But this is still all relative and personal. My "wants" budget for retirement includes $30K/year in travel alone. So my overall "wants" budget (around $160K including taxes) has tons of flexibility, as my "needs" budget is $100K including taxes. Some may say that many of my "needs" are really just "wants" because no one "needs" $100K/year. True, but I still include in my needs budget those things that would make me unhappy to forgo. YMMV.

Edit: And note that I have no mortgage or other debt (but do own a house with substantial property taxes of around $16K/year, plus expensive earthquake insurance).

Right, but you would have a ton of room to cut back if you needed to survive. If you had 25x your 160k and you absolutely needed to cut back to 80k I'm sure you could.. you would then have 50x expenses. It gets harder at lower expense levels.

Agreed. My point was just that standard of living is very subjective and the "wants" budgets of many are lower than the "needs" budgets of many others. I'm sure there are plenty of people that would be unhappy with a $160k budget. It's very anchored to how and where you have been living.

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

One should not confuse income with expenses. If you are living in Manhattan NY, not Manhattan Kansas (no disrespect intended), you are robbing Peter to pay Paul, living on $80K is not sustainable in most parts of Manhattan. The parts that are, you do not want/need to live in.

So if half of the population of Manhattan, NY, is not living "sustainably," then shouldn't we be shorting Manhattan-based real estate, businesses, etc.?

That it’s not sustainable for given individuals doesn’t mean it’s not sustainable for the ever-shifting population. As a former resident of Manhattan and the most expensive parts of Silicon Valley, I know that there is no shortage of “temporary” residents, and no shortage of other people who will come in and live their 2, 5 or 10 years in those places. Same thing with ski towns.

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

Median income etc. from the census is skewed based on what is reported. Median income in reality is higher than what is reported in the census. Every small business owner, farmer etc., shiw low reportable income. Many of their are expenses covered by their businesses. (credit card expenses, vehicles, fuel, insurance , cell phones, meals, entertainment, rent, etc.). or other means of taking profits from a bussiness by avoiding the payroll and medicare taxes. These individuals in reality make many times what is reported on their W2’s

I’m sure there some study into the what the total number of farmers and bussiness owners are of the respondents to the census and from there can extrapolate the true median income.

If everyone was a true W2 wage earner then the census median income would carry more weight.

"It is not the man who has too little, but the man who craves more, that is poor." --Seneca

I'm with Klang when he says when would 120k not be enough. Typically if you are considering FIRE you have no debt. You have paid off cars, paid off mortgage, etc. Most areas aren't the bay area. i live in NJ which most consider HCOL and if we take out my mortgage cost (finished in a couple of years), income tax and child college fund/daycare (will be done when I retire) out of the equation we only spend 32k a year in expenses. Add an extra 10k for vacation/luxury, maybe 10k for home repair/car repair replacement, our social security should more than cover health insurance/medicare. The 32k includes property tax and home/car insurance. I couldn't get close to 120k in expenses even if i tried as long as you have no debt/mortgage. I can understand someone wanting the extra money but you shouldn't need that much unless you are in a major city or bay area.

You are confusing "want" with "need".

You don't "need" whatever you are currently spending, 32k in addition to mortgage, college, day care, and taxes? That sounds like a pretty good sized budget. A lot of people spend way less than that. So, you don't "need" to spend that much. You "want" to spend that much. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Once you recognize that simple fact, why would you be surprised that other people might "want" to spend a lot more, or a lot less than you choose to spend?

I'm inclined to agree. Even in very high COL areas, $120k is well above average income. For instance, in 2014, the median household income in San Francisco was $78k. In Manhattan in 2017, it was $80k.

Many greatly confuse what is truly essential vs. discretionary.

Median income etc. from the census is skewed based on what is reported. Median income in reality is higher than what is reported in the census. Every small business owner, farmer etc., shiw low reportable income. Many of their are expenses covered by their businesses. (credit card expenses, vehicles, fuel, insurance , cell phones, meals, entertainment, rent, etc.). or other means of taking profits from a bussiness by avoiding the payroll and medicare taxes. These individuals in reality make many times what is reported on their W2’s

I’m sure there some study into the what the total number of farmers and bussiness owners are of the respondents to the census and from there can extrapolate the true median income.

If everyone was a true W2 wage earner then the census median income would carry more weight.

The percentage of self-employed individuals is fairly low (around 8% IIRC). The beauty of using the median is that it's not impacted by extreme values in the population. For that reason, the mean household income is significantly higher than the median, the latter of which is usually viewed as being more indicative of what is typical in this situation.

With the disdain that some people here have for government statistics, I'd almost think I was reading Survivalist Boards.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

- No kids
- Expensive hobbies (500$/mo x2 premium health club, flying lessons once a month or so at 300$/hour, a couple ski passes, ...)
- Expensive travelling (couple international trips a year at $10-$15k per trip, several weekends out of town in nice hotels at $2k+ per trip)
- Expensive car payments (Audi + BMW, at $2,000/mo)
- Expensive dining out, multiple times a week (think about sushi dinner for 2 at about 100$ a pop, which is the norm in the Bay)
- Very expensive grocery shopping, mostly at Whole foods (he said about $2000/mo, which includes a lot of whey protein and workout supplements)

- No kids
- Expensive hobbies (500$/mo x2 premium health club, flying lessons once a month or so at 300$/hour, a couple ski passes, ...)
- Expensive travelling (couple international trips a year at $10-$15k per trip, several weekends out of town in nice hotels at $2k+ per trip)
- Expensive car payments (Audi + BMW, at $2,000/mo)
- Expensive dining out, multiple times a week (think about sushi dinner for 2 at about 100$ a pop, which is the norm in the Bay)
- Very expensive grocery shopping, mostly at Whole foods (he said about $2000/mo, which includes a lot of whey protein and workout supplements)

I am in a two person household that shops primarily at Whole Foods, and we spend about $800/month on food and booze. $2000/month seems bizarrely high.

We could spend that much if we wanted. Really good seafood, steaks, organic everything (organic milk here is 4x the price of regular), much more booze, etc. would easily triple our $600 monthly grocery bill.

There's no flipping way that $2k a month for groceries is "normal middle class."

Last edited by willthrill81 on Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

Just another data point here to confirm that it’s not unusual at all for a family in (or around) San Francisco to spend $120k / year even without a mortgage, and while living a fairly frugal life.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

Just another data point here to confirm that it’s not unusual at all for a family in (or around) San Francisco to spend $120k / year even without a mortgage, and while living a fairly frugal life.

I wouldn't dispute that. There's no disputing that boundaries of 'middle class income' are definitely higher in certain areas including San Francisco. But at the same time, I don't know anyone whose life depends on living in the bay area. There's a great big beautiful world out there with beyond SF county, and it's usually a lot cheaper.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

So if half of the population of Manhattan, NY, is not living "sustainably," then shouldn't we be shorting Manhattan-based real estate, businesses, etc.?

There seems to be a big group of residents in the ultra expensive areas (at least among posters here) who don't seem to understand how high there ~300k-400k household incomes are even in the vhcol area they live in. That kinda of thing seems very out of touch to me.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

Your friends either haven’t done the math or are living way beyond their means.

I think they didn’t want to buy in a city they won’t be able to retire in.

Anyway, I have no incentive for making these things up. I’m just sharing what I’ve seen and experienced since I’ve moved here as it came as a shock to me, and I just don’t think most people outside the Bay Area realize how radically different this “bubble” is from the rest of the US. And yes, at $500k you’re “just” middle class.

To be fair, I still can’t process how much money there is here. You vaguely start getting a sense for it once you meet a bunch of angel investors and early employees of successful companies. There are just so many people around you who made their first million before they turned 30. It’s literally another world.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

Your friends either haven’t done the math or are living way beyond their means.

I think they didn’t want to buy in a city they won’t be able to retire in.

Anyway, I have no incentive for making these things up. I’m just sharing what I’ve seen and experienced since I’ve moved here as it came as a shock to me, and I just don’t think most people outside the Bay Area realize how radically different this “bubble” is from the rest of the US. And yes, at $500k you’re “just” middle class.

To be fair, I still can’t process how much money there is here. You vaguely start getting a sense for it once you meet a bunch of angel investors and early employees of successful companies. There are just so many people around you who made their first million before they turned 30. It’s literally another world.

If you spend your time with millionaires and billionaires of course you will feel inadequate.

Get to know some real middle class folks. Teachers, police officers, heck, even the people in your startup working in HR, Finance, etc who didn’t get the benefit of your big exit.

Here is a list of major non-tech employers in the Bay Area. How many of their employees would you say are making $250-500k?

Just another data point here to confirm that it’s not unusual at all for a family in (or around) San Francisco to spend $120k / year even without a mortgage, and while living a fairly frugal life.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

Just another data point here to confirm that it’s not unusual at all for a family in (or around) San Francisco to spend $120k / year even without a mortgage, and while living a fairly frugal life.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

You need to get out of your bubble. I live in San Francisco and have four generations of family in the city, including city workers and retirees. They are not peasants living in dirt, they have comfortable lives. I work in tech, I get it, there are rich people here (including me) but $500k income is not middle class, even in San Fransisco.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

Just another data point here to confirm that it’s not unusual at all for a family in (or around) San Francisco to spend $120k / year even without a mortgage, and while living a fairly frugal life.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

You need to get out of your bubble. I live in San Francisco and have four generations of family in the city, including city workers and retirees. They are not peasants living in dirt, they have comfortable lives. I work in tech, I get it, there are rich people here (including me) but $500k income is not middle class, even in San Fransisco.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

I know it’s very hard to believe if you’re not living there (I certainly couldn’t imagine it before I moved there) but it’s absolutely true. I have several friends here who make around $500k and they’re clearly middle-class at best.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

$500k and they're middle-class 'at best'?? Even by SF standards, I can't believe that. We've personally known folks who've lived 'middle-class' lifestyles there on a fraction of that income.

If that were true, I'd be headed for the exits as fast as my Buick would take me. It would be virtually impossible to get ahead financially and build long-lasting security if $500k was barely middle-class.

You’re right: it is, in fact, close to impossible to build long-lasting security based on this income alone. For instance, one of my closest friend was looking to buy an appartement in the city with his girlfriend, and they realized they simply cannot do it. Their plan has now evolved to quit their jobs and San Francisco as there's literally no way they’ll be able to live comfortably here and raise a family. They both have a high-paying job at a big tech company, and a lot of equities.

So if half of the population of Manhattan, NY, is not living "sustainably," then shouldn't we be shorting Manhattan-based real estate, businesses, etc.?

There seems to be a big group of residents in the ultra expensive areas (at least among posters here) who don't seem to understand how high there ~300k-400k household incomes are even in the vhcol area they live in. That kinda of thing seems very out of touch to me.

That's my impression as well. Virtually no one who earns a high income or has a far higher than average net worth is willing to say "I'm wealthy" or even really think it. I blame part of it on the radical egalitarianism our culture has been moving toward for decades, where people associate being wealthy with all sorts of negative features. Hanging around with a lot of other high income/wealthy people also encourages a sense that that type of thing is just normal.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

I just wish all the boomers would FIRE already. Us Genexers need some top jobs and you keep hogging them

As a tail-end boomer that just bagged it at 56, you're welcome!

But I'm really liking this 3% is the new 4% with maybe a safety margin on top of that and let's also discount Social Security to 0.
Between the lower discretionary income both while working and in retirement and delayed retirement (probably into the slow-go years), that's way less competition for my favorite beach house rentals, restaurant tables, prime camping/fishing spots, hot springs pools, first class upgrades etc.

I just wish all the boomers would FIRE already. Us Genexers need some top jobs and you keep hogging them

As a tail-end boomer that just bagged it at 56, you're welcome!

But I'm really liking this 3% is the new 4% with maybe a safety margin on top of that and let's also discount Social Security to 0.
Between the lower discretionary income both while working and in retirement and delayed retirement (probably into the slow-go years), that's way less competition for my favorite beach house rentals, restaurant tables, prime camping/fishing spots, hot springs pools, first class upgrades etc.

It’s your fellow GenXers who you need to FIRE to make room for the job you’re looking for. Baby boomers are all too old now to be considered true early retirees.

The “E” in FIRE, at least to me, has an age cap of 52. Maybe 55 I’d you really want to stretch it.

I’m a 47 year old GenXer, but if I FIRE I really don’t think my job would even be replaced. That’s the scary part of the work environment you’re talking about. So even those who are in your cohort who FIRE may not be creating any additional opportunity for others.

I just wish all the boomers would FIRE already. Us Genexers need some top jobs and you keep hogging them

As a tail-end boomer that just bagged it at 56, you're welcome!

But I'm really liking this 3% is the new 4% with maybe a safety margin on top of that and let's also discount Social Security to 0.
Between the lower discretionary income both while working and in retirement and delayed retirement (probably into the slow-go years), that's way less competition for my favorite beach house rentals, restaurant tables, prime camping/fishing spots, hot springs pools, first class upgrades etc.

It’s your fellow GenXers who you need to FIRE to make room for the job you’re looking for. Baby boomers are all too old now to be considered true early retirees.

The “E” in FIRE, at least to me, has an age cap of 52. Maybe 55 I’d you really want to stretch it.

I’m a 47 year old GenXer, but if I FIRE I really don’t think my job would even be replaced. That’s the scary part of the work environment you’re talking about. So even those who are in your cohort who FIRE may not be creating any additional opportunity for others.

That is an extremely arbitrary cap that puts your "early" retirees into the top 5%. In fact, in the US anyone who retires before 65 without retiree health benefits has some of the same concerns as any other early retiree. Certainly, anyone who retires before 59.5 and expects to depend on federally tax sheltered dollars needs to know how to deal with those rules and loopholes, and still falls into the top ~15%.

I just wish all the boomers would FIRE already. Us Genexers need some top jobs and you keep hogging them

As a tail-end boomer that just bagged it at 56, you're welcome!

But I'm really liking this 3% is the new 4% with maybe a safety margin on top of that and let's also discount Social Security to 0.
Between the lower discretionary income both while working and in retirement and delayed retirement (probably into the slow-go years), that's way less competition for my favorite beach house rentals, restaurant tables, prime camping/fishing spots, hot springs pools, first class upgrades etc.

It’s your fellow GenXers who you need to FIRE to make room for the job you’re looking for. Baby boomers are all too old now to be considered true early retirees.

The “E” in FIRE, at least to me, has an age cap of 52. Maybe 55 I’d you really want to stretch it.

I’m a 47 year old GenXer, but if I FIRE I really don’t think my job would even be replaced. That’s the scary part of the work environment you’re talking about. So even those who are in your cohort who FIRE may not be creating any additional opportunity for others.

That is an extremely arbitrary cap that puts your "early" retirees into the top 5%. In fact, in the US anyone who retires before 65 without retiree health benefits has some of the same concerns as any other early retiree. Certainly, anyone who retires before 59.5 and expects to depend on federally tax sheltered dollars needs to know how to deal with those rules and loopholes, and still falls into the top ~15%.

My point was the “FIRE movement” has more of an extreme edge to it, in the sense the age of retirement is typically associated with people that are younger than those who are able to get AARP discounts. To my way of thinking (however flawed) that makes 55 the hard limit. Just my 2 cents. I always respect someone with a difference of opinion.